It potentially doesn't work if you say that believing in the incorrect God could leave you worse off than not believing in God at all. However since few religious theologies say that (at least none that I have heard of), you are still on the safer side of the wager.
The Bible and the Qu'ran both teach this. Sure I didn't believe in God, but at least I wasn't worshipping false Gods.
So in Example A, your belief in God doesn't change anything, and in Example B your belief in God changes something for the better if God exists and doesn't change anything if he doesn't. So Pascal's wager still works.
One would argue something did change for the better though. Say there is no God and you spent your life doing everything in your power to gain salvation through him. I could argue that in this scenario I win because I lived my life in a more pleasurable way. I spent my time doing what I wanted to do instead of what a non-existant being wanted me to. Therefore you actually did end up losing something, your life.
Not only that, if you further that logic into the example that we both have it wrong that not only is there a God but he's not the God you're worshipping. At least I lived my life the way I wanted to, without trying to please a God. In this scenario we both receive the same punishment AND you have wasted your entire life trying to please the wrong deity.
This is why it's a bunk wager, it's still a bet and there is no better bet than any other. The outcome is still unknown, it's not like you're trying to cover a point spread or anything. It's like playing Russian Roulette, are you any better off with a gun having not fired vs. a gun having fired but no round coming out? I would say not. Though a more accurate description would be Russian Roulette with four bullets and one empty chamber, are you any better off with a gun that has not fired vs a gun that has fired one round? You still know there's a chance of living since that chamber had not passed but the odds are still pretty slim.
